Canon 70-200 2.8 vs Canon 100-400 IS

Waynesworldphotography · May 14, 2007

It seems these two lens are close to the same price range. I have the 70-200 2.8 and mainly shoot motocross races and some wildlife. Does anyone have any advise on the 100-400 IS. I like the range and may sell or trade but then I loose that 2.8 opening. I also wonder if the 100-400mm would be good for high school football games since sometimes the fields are not that well lit. Thanks for any advise.

Roger

ThinkingMan · May 14, 2007

I own both lenses(I have the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8). I find that I use the 70-200 much more for sports shooting. I shoot primarily ultimate frisbee from the sideline. The larger aperture was a massive advantage for indoor games which are played on indoor soccer fields.

That being said, I do also love my 100-400. The extra reach is an awesome advantage and when I can't freely roam the sideline it's pretty much all I use for ultimate. I also use it for birding (I'm an major amateur, but hey gotta start somewhere right?) and even the ocasional landscape or even more rarely a portrait.

I guess what I'm saying is if you already own the 70-200 hang on to it. If you need the reach but can't afford the price, consider picking up a teleconverter for your 70-200. Even though I own both lenses I've definitely debated picking up the canon 1.4x tc to use with the 70-200 so I could get a longer reach with only 1 stop loss in speed.

Hope this helps.

ThinkingMan

Waynesworldphotography · May 14, 2007

lens
PM sent

Milner · May 14, 2007

I have the 100-400 and I find myself wanting the 70-200. I love my 100-400 but for the mtn biking and motorsports I shoot, I really need the 2.8 sometimes, but the reach of the 400 sometimes....So I agree, both:D it's only $$

Frog Lady · May 14, 2007

I've been using the 100-400 for little over a year now and have been pretty impressed by its reach. In broad daylight, I can shoot at the widest aperature and do ok. I mostly shoot soccer and some baseball, and w/ the soccer have had issues w/ the bkgd being too much in focus, particularly when shooting action further across the field. I try to position my self as much as possible to minimize it, but it is often not possible to completely eliminate it.

I also just (ie, a week ago) got the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS) and have tried it out at one soccer and one t-ball game. For the t-ball game, it was great. The kids were close enough that 200 was long enough. However, I really felt limited by the lack of reach on the soccer field. I found my self watching the game more instead of taking pictures b/c I knew, even w/ a crop, that the action wouldn't be big enough in the cropped version. That being said, it does limit you to about mid-field, which forces you to take advantage of the wide open aperature b/c the other side is further away... I am still very happy with it and will likely alternate between the two over the next few weeks to really compare the lenses, and I think they will each have their place, I just need to get a better feel for what that place is for the new 70-200.

HTH,

C.

Maestro · May 18, 2007

I have the 100-400mm and in good light it is a great lens, but for some sporting events I would understand why the faster 2.8 would be better, but then you sacrifice reach. Have you ever thought about investing in the 100-400mm along with a high-end flash unit? The lens may be useable is lower light with the flash unit.

claudermilk · May 22, 2007

It's that aperture that keeps me from looking more at the 100-400 and got me to purchase the 70-200 instead. If only Canon would make a 100-400/2.8.

In the meantime, I lust after Sigma's 120-300/2.8. I really need the 2.8, and if they could make a faster zoom that didn't require an armored car to transport the money to them and lens away, I'd be all over it.

gryphonslair99 · May 22, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

It's that aperture that keeps me from looking more at the 100-400 and got me to purchase the 70-200 instead. If only Canon would make a 100-400/2.8. In the meantime, I lust after Sigma's 120-300/2.8. I really need the 2.8, and if they could make a faster zoom that didn't require an armored car to transport the money to them and lens away, I'd be all over it.

If 400mm is the reach you want, this is the lens you need. I have rented it and shot it in the past and I have now saved 3/4 of the money to buy it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186152-USA/Canon_2533A002_Telephoto_EF_400mm_f_2_8L.html

Just don't get no better than this bubba.

If the Canon engineers could make a zoom-telephoto 100-400 f2.8 that equals the sharpness of the 400 f2.8 across the focal range, you would never be able to afford it. The price would be a killer.
:jawdrop

claudermilk · May 23, 2007

Fortunately I don't "need" that kind of reach. "Want" is another thing & even that price makes me look like this: :jawdrop Fortunately my shiny new 70-200/2.8L is all the longer reach I'll need 98% of the time and I have access to a 300/2.8L IS for the other 2%--and 300mm is long enough so far. I assume the 400 is as sharp as the 300, which blows me away. Maybe someday I will be able to afford & justify the cost of those really big guns.

...of course I *could* go spend $300 on that Opteka 650-1300/8-16 and out-reach everyone. Then we could all play "guess what this is a picture of"

heh

gryphonslair99 · May 23, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

Fortunately I don't "need" that kind of reach. "Want" is another thing & even that price makes me look like this: :jawdrop Fortunately my shiny new 70-200/2.8L is all the longer reach I'll need 98% of the time and I have access to a 300/2.8L IS for the other 2%--and 300mm is long enough so far. I assume the 400 is as sharp as the 300, which blows me away. Maybe someday I will be able to afford & justify the cost of those really big guns.

...of course I *could* go spend $300 on that Opteka 650-1300/8-16 and out-reach everyone. Then we could all play "guess what this is a picture of" heh

That is sissy reach for a lens. This is reach.

With this baby, that Opteka lens would just be one of those objects you could take pictures of at 18 to 32 miles away. Now that is reach.

Sure tough to hand hold though. I was thinking of getting a monopod for mine.

rofl

jdryan3 · May 23, 2007

gryphonslair99 wrote:

That is sissy reach for a lens. This is reach.

With this baby, that Opteka lens would just be one of those objects you could take pictures of at 18 to 32 miles away. Now that is reach.

Sure tough to hand hold though. I was thinking of getting a monopod for mine.rofl

How's it compare in price to the Bigma? And does B&H have an instant rebate on it? Gotta be at least $75!

CatOne · May 23, 2007

gryphonslair99 wrote:

That is sissy reach for a lens. This is reach.

With this baby, that Opteka lens would just be one of those objects you could take pictures of at 18 to 32 miles away. Now that is reach.

Sure tough to hand hold though. I was thinking of getting a monopod for mine.rofl

1:14? PLEASE.

I want to see that same focal length in a 2.8

claudermilk · May 24, 2007

gryphonslair99 wrote:

That is sissy reach for a lens. This is reach.

With this baby, that Opteka lens would just be one of those objects you could take pictures of at 18 to 32 miles away. Now that is reach.

Sure tough to hand hold though. I was thinking of getting a monopod for mine.rofl

:giggle:lol4:lol

Ummm.....buut it looks like it's an FD lens? Looks to me like that little silver & black box hanging off the right side is an older FD body. Bah, what's another $150 for an FD-EOS covnerter to slap on there. Besides, you get no one, but two spotting telescopes with the lens.

Gotta love the minimum focus, 4 football fields.

salazar · May 24, 2007

gryphonslair99 wrote:

That is sissy reach for a lens. This is reach.

With this baby, that Opteka lens would just be one of those objects you could take pictures of at 18 to 32 miles away. Now that is reach.

I wonder how many the CIA purchased?

What year was this, do you know?

UP N MTNS · May 24, 2007

salazar wrote:

What year was this, do you know?

I just did a little digging and from what I found it looks like Canon started to make them in 1962 and stopped in 1965...

and now that you typed those three letters there wacthing you.......maybe even with the 5200mm.

jdryan3 · May 24, 2007

UP N MTNS wrote:

I just did a little digging and from what I found it looks like Canon started to make them in 1962 and stopped in 1965...

and now that you typed those three letters there wacthing you.......maybe even with the 5200mm.

...and the SR-71 was mockup was shown in 1962, announced in 1964 and became operational in 1966...but I doubt this is the type of imaging sensor it used

Canon 70-200 2.8 vs Canon 100-400 IS

Comments